EU bans Glyphosate.

Xarog said:
I have provided links to two scientific studies which showed a clear connection between sub-lethal glyphosate levels in bees and their ability to navigate in the world and make it back to the hive successfully.

Their methodology is quite easy to reproduce, it's not a hard experiment to do.

I mean, you're not claiming the evidence has to be on wikipedia to be valid, are you? :erm:
Click to expand...

No, I mean that any evidence that any real weight or scientific validity would definitely appear there.
 
Xarog said:
I have provided links to two scientific studies which showed a clear connection between sub-lethal glyphosate levels in bees and their ability to navigate in the world and make it back to the hive successfully.

Their methodology is quite easy to reproduce, it's not a hard experiment to do.

I mean, you're not claiming the evidence has to be on wikipedia to be valid, are you? :erm:
Click to expand...
Anyone can cite research that supports their case. As you know, most published peer-reviewed medical research papers are not just wrong but false.

You obviously must know about Dr John Ioannides.

Dr Ioannides is not a crank or an enemy of science. On the contrary, his work has been published in leading journals and his claims are widely accepted among his colleagues. He has worked at Harvard University, Tufts University and Johns Hopkins University. His ground-breaking 2005 paper in the journal PLoS Medicine has become the most downloaded in its history. Every year he receives hundreds of invitations to speak at conferences. “You can question some of the details of John’s calculations, but it’s hard to argue that the essential ideas aren’t absolutely correct,” Doug Altman, the director of Oxford’s Centre for Statistics in Medicine, told Atlantic Monthly.

... Even more discouraging for medical researchers is that the gold-standard of medical research, double-blind randomised trials, are not altogether reliable either. In another 2005 paper published in the Journal of the American Medical Association, Ioannides examined 49 of the top science papers of the previous 13 years. They had appeared in the best journals and had been cited extensively. Yet between one-third and one-half of them were unreliable because they were later found to be either outright wrong or exaggerated.
Click to expand...

These matters are rather less settled than we often imagine.
 
Last edited:
Arthur said:
Anyone can cite research that supports their case. As you know, most published peer-reviewed medical research papers are not just wrong but false.

You obviously must know about Dr John Ioannides.
Click to expand...
You're talking about two different areas of research, though. Toxicology studies on bees is not anywhere near the same thing as double-blind trials trying to prove a drug is commercially viable and more effective than the placebo effect.

I'll let you figure out which one is more likely to be corrupted by revolving-door policies, research grants and profit motives.
 
LazyLion said:
There isn't any evidence. Or it would have appeared in that Wikipedia article.
Click to expand...
Ignores the evidence. Claims there's no evidence.

LazyLion said:
Then why do scientists perform tests on rats?
Click to expand...
To get an idea since rats have many of the same physiology as us. Still they don't extrapolate the results onto humans and do independent small scale studies until something is deemed safe. The biggest problem with the studies is that rats don't live long enough so it's useless as far as saying "only in large doses." The effect of small doses would simply not show up because of the limitation.

LazyLion said:
No, I mean that any evidence that any real weight or scientific validity would definitely appear there.
Click to expand...
LOL
 
Swa said:
Ignores the evidence. Claims there's no evidence.
Click to expand...
When is evidence not evidence? When it doesn't appear in Wikipedia, the encyclopaedia literally anyone can edit. :crylaugh:
 
Xarog said:
When is evidence not evidence? When it doesn't appear in Wikipedia, the encyclopaedia literally anyone can edit. :crylaugh:
Click to expand...

So, if anyone can edit it, then the people who are aware of this "evidence" didn't think it necessary to add that to the article either?
 
LazyLion said:
So, if anyone can edit it, then the people who are aware of this "evidence" didn't think it necessary to add that to the article either?
Click to expand...
Yup. That's how volunteer-based things work.

If I go and rectify that, will it change your mind?
 
LazyLion said:
So, if anyone can edit it, then the people who are aware of this "evidence" didn't think it necessary to add that to the article either?
Click to expand...
Yet it's there. Says more about wikipedia than it does about the evidence.
 
https://www.researchgate.net/public..._acid_analogue_of_glycine_in_diverse_proteins

Glyphosate, a synthetic amino acid and analogue of glycine, is the most widely used biocide on the planet. Its presence in food for human consumption and animal feed is ubiquitous. Epidemiological studies have revealed a strong correlation between the increasing incidence in the United States of a large number of chronic diseases and the increased use of glyphosate herbicide on corn, soy and wheat crops. Glyphosate, acting as a glycine analogue, may be mistakenly incorporated into peptides during protein synthesis. A deep search of the research literature has revealed a number of protein classes that depend on conserved glycine residues for proper function. Glycine, the smallest amino acid, has unique properties that support flexibility and the ability to anchor to the plasma membrane or the cytoskeleton. Glyphosate substitution for conserved glycines can easily explain a link with diabetes, obesity, asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), pulmonary edema, adrenal insufficiency, hypothyroidism, Alzheimer’s disease, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), Parkinson’s disease, prion diseases, lupus, mitochondrial disease, non- Hodgkin’s lymphoma, neural tube defects, infertility, hypertension, glaucoma, osteoporosis, fatty liver disease and kidney failure. The correlation data together with the direct biological evidence make a compelling case for glyphosate action as a glycine analogue to account for much of glyphosate’s toxicity. Glufosinate, an analogue of glutamate, likely exhibits an analogous toxicity mechanism. There is an urgent need to find an effective and economical way to grow crops without the use of glyphosate and glufosinate as herbicides.
Click to expand...
Perfectly safe for human consumption, though. :whistle:
 
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X